> # ip route add default nexthop via 10.10.10.2 dev eth0 nexthop via > 10.10.10.1 dev eth0 I wonder if this is a problem going out over the same NIC to the two providers? All the docs I can find show each provider on its own NIC. I am setting up something similar and was just about to ask if I can do it with one NIC connecting all the providers. That would save me a bunch of precious PCI slots! In my case there are 4 - count 'em - 4 external routers to the Internet! 3 of them are supposed to load-balance for user traffic and the fourth is for a bunch of internal servers with known IP Addresses. So there will be a fwmark policy that puts the routes for those servers into its own table. Life would be great if I could do all this on a single NIC connecting all of those routers. Or do Neils and I both need a separate NIC for each router? thanks - Greg -----Original Message----- From: niels@wxn.nl [mailto:niels@wxn.nl] Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 8:42 AM To: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl Subject: Multipath route problem Hi ... I have 2 DSL lines all up and running on one RedHat box... I want to balance traffic going out over the two providers The 2 DSL routers Have IP's 10.10.10.1 / 10.10.10.2 ... my linux box (eth0) has IP 10.10.10.10 connected on a separate ethernet SO I read the http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html guide (chapter 4.2.2) In my case I have to make these routes # ip route add default nexthop via 10.10.10.1 dev eth0 nexthop via 10.10.10.2 dev eth0 Works Fine!! every connection request going is perfectly balanced sent out via both gateways But works only on the linux box itself! from the (masqueraded) clients it doesn't: Every first request which is masqueraded -> gateway 10.10.10.1 (works fine) Every second request which is masqueraded -> gateway 10.10.10.2 (don't get reply back) When I change the multipath route so that 10.10.10.2 is the first hop # ip route add default nexthop via 10.10.10.2 dev eth0 nexthop via 10.10.10.1 dev eth0 Gw 10.10.10.2 (fine) Gw 10.10.10.1 (doesn't work ... Only from the linux box itself) So it every time seems to be the second "hop" in the multipath route which isn't beeing masqueraded properly! Can anyone help? Thanks in advance! Niels! _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
